brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Template talk:Warn1
21:20, October 29, 2009 (UTC)}} Per Samdo's suggestion, i've removed the border. The idea is, when people get the first warning for things like good faith edits, they see it as a message and not a warning, and hopefully improve and edit more, as we seem to have less users at the moment :). Thoughts? ---It's a Kind of Madness--- Kingcjc 19:19, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :Good idea. We could even remove the image, but just for the first warning. Ajraddatz 19:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Subjective Hi all. Nighthawk leader added the subjective parameter to this template, which warns users who added biased content to articles. I reverted; subjective opinions as those dictated in the warning are usually in good faith, and warning templates should never, ever, ever be used for good faith edits. Any thoughts? FB100Z • talk • 05:15, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :I'd prefer to just delete the templates. There has been way too much biting of newcomers these day, especially since it is proven that many new users don't have the wikicompetance to see their talk pages (and are thus rewarded with 1 month blocks). 05:21, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd agree to that, actually. Handcrafted messages ftw. FB100Z • talk • 05:23, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :::If nothing else, there should at least be some practice of blocking good faith new users for two hours with the message "see your ", rather than continuous warnings and then some really long block. 05:26, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::::Hehe, maybe not delete, but just use for obvious vandals only. 05:29, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::::::P Whatevs. Maybe we could break up the template into a bunch of little ones (like Template:Uw-watermarked-image-1 for watermark violation, Template:Uw-test-1 for test edit violation, etc.) and use substing to make them a little more personal. Like on Wikipedia. (I don't care if we aren't Wikipedia.) FB100Z • talk • 05:34, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I think we should keep them - some people might see vandalism and revert it, but not know what to say to the vandal. This makes it easier. 05:45, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :::::::Strong oppose to deleting them- personalised messages for vandals- what a waste of time. However, I do think there should be some sort of "warn0" template for the subjective thing, along with other good faith edits which are just bad (eg poor grammar/spelling, etc, even the first time they put in a bad cat), which doesn't appear as a warning template as such, just a sort of additional welcome, and let them know they need to change something a bit about their editing. I've reverted the revert, not because I don't agree that it shouldn't be in a warning box, but because without it, it defaults to a general vandalism message, and it is used on talk pages, so they'd be receiving a harsher warning than they should have (and also removed the AFD because the AFD notice was removed by Ajr who apparently nominated it? :S that if I've just got something wrong here) 06:04, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::You apply the term vandal pretty liberally here. What about this one from today? The point here is that these things are either being misused, or nobody on this wiki knows the difference between a vandal and a good faith editor that made a mistake. Or in that case, a good faith editor who wasn't making a mistake. 06:07, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::Umm... I know Rappy isn't a vandal- I'd like to see you argue that this guy is actually a valuable member of our community and worth a personalised message- it's these kind of editors I'm talking about when I say "vandal", I don't see how that's even remotely "liberal". If you want to waste your time with them, fine, but I think placing a template on their page is more than they deserve, and I know there are many other users who wouldn't be bothered with them. 08:22, January 10, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Nobody is suggesting that users like those should be given nice personalized messages. What I am suggesting is that the template is limited to vandals like the one you linked to, rather than potentially good faith editors making mistakes. 15:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Umm yeah isn't that what I said? :P (sorry, mustn't have been clear enough) 23:25, January 10, 2012 (UTC) * Should this be maybe moved to a forum? It does apply to more than this template alone.... and maybe (if we are keeping templates) this time around, we could decide on a message for each of them as a group instead of just writing them as we go? 11:01, January 10, 2012 (UTC)